The two-unit Cumberland coal plant in northwestern Tennessee, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, is one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the United States, capable of supplying electricity to as many as 1.4 million homes when it is running.
But lately, the plant has been failing right when customers need electricity the most.
In the middle of the heat wave that hit the eastern United States this June, one of the units tripped offline, forcing the T.V.A. to declare a power emergency and ask customers to cut back on electricity use. For consumers, this meant raising the temperature of their air-conditioning on some of the hottest days of the year.
Cumberland’s problems run so deep that the T.V.A. plans to retire the 52-year-old units in 2026 and 2028. It has warned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that keeping the plant open any longer would require significant investment and create economic and reliability risks.
“Clean, beautiful coal” has become a mantra for the Trump administration. But it is neither clean nor beautiful. More to the point, it is neither economical nor reliable — central concerns for utilities and power producers across the country. In contrast, wind and solar energy and battery storage, which the administration actively opposes, are less expensive, more reliable and far better for the climate.
Most of the coal mined in the United States today fuels aging electric power plants such as Cumberland that are costly to maintain and increasingly unsound. It’s why America gets just one-third as much electricity from coal as it did in 2007, when power production from coal peaked. Since then, large coal-fired plants have been steadily replaced by cheaper, cleaner and more efficient alternatives. In 2025 alone, 23 units are scheduled to close or be converted to gas by utilities and other power producers. From 2026 to 2030, 109 more units are expected to stop burning coal, according to research by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, where we work.
The Trump administration is betting that forcing coal plants to stay open, offering $625 million to upgrade plants, giving away coal on federal land, cutting pollution limits and opening more land to coal mining will spark a turnaround for coal-fired power generation. But while these measures could prolong the operating lives of some coal plants for a short period, they will not reverse the decline of an industry hurtling into economic and technological obsolescence.
Coal-fired power plants are essentially steam engines, a technology the railroads abandoned in the 1950s and ’60s. They are practically identical to the first coal-fired plant, built in 1882 by Thomas Edison to produce electricity in New York City.
But power technology and grid operations have evolved significantly over the past two decades, first by the rise of generation that has no fuel cost (wind and solar) and more recently by battery storage, which can send power to the grid as needed. Batteries in Texas now store power when demand is low and solar generation is high (think 10 a.m.) and then send that power back into the system when demand is high (around 7 p.m.).
This capability, which didn’t exist in the grid until recently, is sharply lowering spikes in power prices and reducing consumer costs. It’s also enabling even more low-cost renewables to be built and reducing the old approach of building expensive fossil-fueled plants dedicated to meeting periods of peak demand.
Coal plants, in contrast, cannot respond quickly to changes in grid demand. Many of them lose money across the day when power prices are low, since they cannot easily stop running in response to low demand.
While coal power struggles with high fuel, operation and maintenance costs, solar and battery storage costs are projected to continue falling while performance improves, further undercutting coal’s competitiveness.
Because the batteries large enough to store electricity for the grid are based on the same technology as batteries for consumer electronics and electric vehicles, they benefit enormously from global investment and research. As a result, energy storage density, a key measure of performance, has been improving by 5 percent or more annually. Solar panels have also seen consistent increases in efficiency combined with falling costs.
Battery storage and solar have other key advantages that conventional power plants do not. Both can be built at nearly any size, from small residential units to large, high-power utility projects. They can also be built almost anywhere, helping utilities avoid costly transmission upgrades and other infrastructure investments.
These advantages have increasingly undercut the economics of coal generation. The problem has gotten so severe that many utilities, even in coal-friendly states, have converted or are planning to convert their existing coal plants to burn natural gas to keep them open and operating. Think about that for a minute: It is often cheaper and more reliable to retrofit a coal plant to burn gas than to keep operating it as is.
Gas is the preferred option for the T.V.A. saddled with the Cumberland coal plants. It is building a 1,450-megawatt combined-cycle natural gas plant as a replacement.
The Trump administration is likely to push the T.V.A. to continue operating the facility past its planned closure dates, regardless of the cost and reliability implications for consumers. The Department of Energy has already forced a Michigan utility to keep the J.H. Campbell coal plant open — despite long-term, state-approved plans to close it in May — which cost $29 million in the first five weeks alone. Consumers, including many who are not even served by the utility, will ultimately be forced to pay for these actions.
These costly stopgap measures are largely performative. They will not prevent coal’s declining importance as an electricity generation resource. The alternatives are simply less expensive, more reliable and quicker to build.
Seth Feaster and Dennis Wamsted are analysts at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post Trump’s Coal Plan Is Doomed appeared first on New York Times.
